validate_setup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verbs 'validate', 'check', and 'verify' clearly signal read-only, non-destructive operations. It does not detail error behavior or return format, but for a simple validation tool, the core behavior is sufficiently transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise, front-loaded sentence that lists the key actions without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns or what happens on failure. While the tool is simple, the description omits these contextually important details. It covers the main purpose adequately but leaves a gap in expected outcomes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already explains 'check_scopes' and 'required_scopes'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs: 'Validate access token, check scopes, and verify business account setup'. It distinctly identifies the resource (access token, scopes, business account) and differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on setup validation rather than data retrieval or posting.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used to validate setup prerequisites, likely before using other API tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisite conditions. No alternative tools are referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.